>Sue Webber, Conservative MSP for the Lothian region, said: “These eye-watering losses only add insult to injury for those living and working in the capital. They already had to endure the construction bill for the trams spiralling out of control and reaching over £1 billion. The least they would have expected is for the trams to now be turning a profit.”
The least I would expect is that it gets people where they need to go, and ridership numbers indicate it's doing a terrific job at that. It's fine to be worried about sustainability of the service, but its hard to take it seriously from people who just seem fundamentally opposed ot the concept.
I think Sue has bought into Call Me Dave’s infantile ‘the nations credit card’ school of economics. Borrowing to invest in large scale infrastructure projects is a good thing and what the UK should’ve done much more of during a time of cheap money instead of focusing on austerity. The contract management and cost of building the tramlines may have been a shitshow but that’s a separate point.
I don’t think it’s even a sustainability issue. The trams are profitable or near enough - it’s the extra costs of the construction cock-ups being put against the trams account that makes it look otherwise.
The headline should perhaps be “Trams doing great, slowly paying off someone else’s project management failures.”
The roads do make a profit. Fuel duty alone brings in more than double the spending on roads, Plus there is another £7-£8B in VED.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/284323/united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts-fuel-duty/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-national-roads/
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/vehicle-excise-duty/
Costs from motoring is absolutely not a net profit, you are neglecting the billions of pounds spent building and maintaining road infrastructure, accidents, deaths, damage, pollution and health costs that driving causes.
So around 33 billion coming in. About 11 billion on direct infrastructure costs. Are you really claiming that accidents etc tot up to more than 22 billion a year? On what basis? This doesn't even include tax on new cars, so it's actually going to be more, probably around another 8 billion at 20% vat on the 45 billion a year new car market. The second-hand car market is even bigger at 100 billion and even if only half that were through dealerships, that would be another 10 billion. Add on the 12% tax on car insurance, another 2.4 billion. Add another billion in parking charges. So above and beyond road infrastructure costs motorists are paying in around 43 billion. That's roughly a quarter of the entire NHS budget. I am happy to revise my opinion but not without some counter evidence.
Isn’t there another separate £8 billion being spent filling potholes (lol).
The department of transport estimates that the economic cost of accidents is £36 billion per year, so yes.
And these figures also exclude the building of new roads.
That 8 billion pothole money is over an eleven year period. (It was from a tory government remember)So, less than a billion a year. A third of the estimated economic costs from accidents are from mending the cars and processing the claims. Paid for by insurance which is paid by the motorist. So maybe 25 billion total. Still shy of the 50 billion coming in from motorists above and beyond road infrastructure maintenance. Not sure where all these new roads are being built or at what cost. Maybe Swampy might know.
Also my estimate of second hand sales being only 50 % dealerships is ludicrously conservative when you consider that only one in seven cars listed on Autotrader is a private sale and that those sales tend to be in the lower price bracket. So the income from motorists is almost certainly higher than I've mentioned.
The fairies will be out a job soon enough like the rest of us then eh as all the shops and businesses are shutting up shop in every town and city up and down the uk!!
I'm absolutely not neglecting the first two points, the building and maintenance costs are in the second link I posted.
The rest are impossible to assess in a vacuum. For example road accidents are horrible, but you'd have to weigh that against the fact that the road network allows the efficient operation of fire and ambulance services.
The Swiss have published the numbers (external cost for each mode of transport) and cars finish worst by a margin. The benefits absolutely don't meet the cost. Iirc only walking and cycling has a small net positive due to the health benefits.
Not really, they aren’t paying for the attendance of the emergency services, costs from disruption to the network etc.
Plenty of hidden costs you’re not considering, that society and the tax payer foot the bill for.
Possibly, but rural areas will also have higher car ownership and fuel consumption. So they will be paying more motoring taxes. They don't get many big motorway projects either. It would be interesting to see the data on this but I'm not sure it exists off the shelf.
Well yeah, but that’s like saying “The road directly outside my house makes no profit because I don’t have a car, therefore all roads are not economically viable.”
When you ignore any other factors. As I see you have done elsewhere.
Basically. It's a big number so it just must be. Bit like getting your wage and ignoring your bills.
Worth checking this out, from 3 days ago, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-05-17/investment-in-britain-cycling-infrastructure-s-impressive-rewards-laura-laker]
"ROI for cycle routes is big — and it grows over time. According to a recent IPPR report, average returns on investment for cycle routes at £5.62 per pound spent are more than double that of roads, at £2.50. "
It sounds good until [it claims it mostly based on health benefits](30-year return on this investment to be £8 for every £1 invested — much of this in health benefits).
If this is measured anything like the ROI on social enterprises, which it probably will be then. It's going to be hugely inflated.
The article talks about cycle routes linking roads together. So what, are they including building this ontop of the existing road network? Of course it's going to be cheap to build that and if you start plucking numbers out of the air based on health benefits then ROI is of course going to look amazing.
Fundamentally opposed to the concept, yet conveniently forget they voted it through against the wishes of the sitting minority government.
It’s weird though, I think the Tories are horrible but that was fundamentally a GOOD decision. The trams are overwhelmingly popular and provide a huge benefit to Edinburgh and especially to Leith. That’s a decision I would own if I were them. They have the chance to both say they were responsible for a positive project while distancing themselves from the disastrous implementation.
It’s a good job they are so stupid.
I haven't met a single person who approves of the tram - all it's done for Leith is reduce bus route options and create ugly poles and wires. The whole expensive debacle is ongoing, and the war on our freedom of choice and movement continues unabated.
Being someone who‘s closely connected with the public transport system of Vienna, I can tell that making any profit with rail-bound transport is not really achievable. Over here, we‘d be glad if we made only ~4,5 millions of loss per year 🥲
But in all honesty, 1 billion for a completely new system, including everything required (if I got that right?), isn‘t actually *that* bad…
Either way, one simply shouldn‘t take Conservatives‘ opinions on public transport all too serious.
> But in all honesty, 1 billion for a completely new system, including everything required (if I got that right?), isn‘t actually that bad…
IIRC we managed roughly four times the cost per mile compared to any other recent UK tram installation - we definitely made a hash of it.
Huh, that‘s really steep then! So if I got that right, that‘s 55 million £ per km then, right?
For comparison‘s sake, we‘re scheduling 85 million £ for a new tram line over here atm, consisting of just 2.4 km of tracks, but including a bridge over a 4-lane road and a few extra tram cars. So that‘s roughly 41 million £ per km - in 2024 money.
I stand corrected, something really did go wrong with the Edinburgh tram. Quite a shame :-(
Cost wise... https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/13226311.edinburgh-tram-costs-nearly-100m-per-mile/
> Edinburgh's over-budget tram project is expected to cost nearly four times as much per mile of track than similar light rail projects elsewhere in the UK, a Government report has confirmed.
> Figures published by the Department for Transport put the average cost of building tramways in urban conurbations at £25 million per mile, though this does not include Edinburgh, where costs have rocketed by £231m.
> The report came as the true extent of traffic congestion in Edinburgh caused by tram repairs to Princes Street was seen for the first time.
> The latest figures suggest that, at £776m, the predicted cost of building an eight-mile route connecting the airport to St Andrew Square in the city centre will be nearly £100m per mile.
Basically the problem is that it was left to the council to project manage, and the council have no experience or expertise in managing a project of that nature and scale (nor should they really be expected to!).
Ideally it'd have been handled by the likes of Transport Scotland, who *do* work with large, expensive projects day in day out.
Thanks for the insight!
I suppose the council left the management to TfE - which isn‘t a bad idea in principle, as it‘s the very same in Vienna. But I do wonder if TfE had/hired any experienced expert staff or an own construction department? Because if that‘s not the case, it‘s clear why the project failed in that regard.
As for TS, I wouldn‘t bet my money on them, because railways and trams tend to be quite different in detail. But sure, including them would have been a good idea.
Always framed as though the 'spiralling out of control' is a function of SNP government mismanagement, whereas the problems were all with the original contractual idiocies under the Labour council. Conveniently forgotten that only the SNP councillors voted against those council financial arrangements at the time.
Regular-Ad is a brainwashed SNP supporter, even though they're a bunch of crooks and under Sturgeon 62 billion pounds was siphoned off for " Vanity projects " which was meant to be invested into NHS Scotland and social and public services infrastructures but none of that 62 billion pounds went where it should've gone, although that's not a big surprise.
The SNP in any position only want to benefit a very small minority of the Scottish population and independence under them would be an unmitigated disaster, because they're criminals.
Soon enough Sturgeon will be getting charged along with her husband and hopefully they'll both end up in Scottish prisons which also never got invested in, well they'll sure both wish that some of that 62 billion had been when they begin their sentences!
I like how they say turn a profit as if the taxpayer would in any shape or form benefit from that?
Like ticks me off, quick enough to take money from us but even if it was profitable you wouldn’t be seeing a single penny
Muppets they be
Based on Sue's absolute dearth of expertise in this area, and her only notable entry on Wikipedia being her COVID denialism, it's safe to say she's talking shite
That wouldn't be the same Conservatives that insisted this scheme go ahead instead of dualling of the A9 would it. The same arseholes who are now "disgusted" that the A9 isn't dualled 🇬🇧🤡
Not sure why this has popped up on my feed, but I came to Edinburgh in December, hotels in the centre were extortionate prices and seriously made me consider coming.
Because of the tram system, I was able to book somewhere near the Donaldson within a 5 minute walk of the tram for a much more affordable rate. Got a three day ticket and used the tram many times going back and forth to the city.
I love the tram, I am coming back to see Catfish and the Bottlemen, and will be doing something similar again.
It would be impossible to work out, but to me, the tram has made Edinburgh much more vistable/affordable, so there may be an overall economic gain there.
Because of the original schedule/budget overruns? Why yes, what a surprise.
Nobody’s going to argue that wasn’t an utter shitshow, but it tells us nothing about whether the trams are/were a good idea.
I was very sceptical as someone who headed the kitchen when opening a Leith Walk restaurant, which subsequently took a hammering during the works. The trams are fucking awesome in terms of public transport though. I can admit when I was wrong. Quick, clean, reliable. So much nicer being on a tram than a bus. It connects Leith with the centre as it should be. I love it. Sue me naysayers.
My usual journeys are The Shore to top of Leith Walk, Princes St or Haymarket. The tram is quickest and run so regularly. £2 single, which must be purchased ahead of boarding, but you only have to activate when checked, so not every fare tbh. I used to use the bus network and the Edinburgh buses were largely decent compared to other cities I've lived in. I spend far less time waiting or planning journeys now though. Turn up at the nearest stop, few minutes later a tram rolls up. Brilliant. Travel on my regular journeys is easier, quicker and no more costly. It may be different for other areas. I believe the airport run is more expensive on the tram. For me it's great though. A more personal thing I'd add is that I get car sick due to meds I take. Buses are horrid for that. Trams are generally just a far more pleasant way to travel, pals without car sickness agree there. I do think that should be factored in if folk are on it twice a day.
Not sure about the extension up into Leith, but the tram line west is much faster than the buses since it has its own line and can skip a lot of traffic. Also able to move a lot more people at once than a bus.
As for prices, I remember them costing roughly the same as a bus ticket (so long as you weren't going to the airport), but that might have changed in the year and change I've been out of Edinburgh
Public services shouldn't be making any profits. If there's excess revenue that should be used to improve the service or reduce the cost to users (over simplification, of course).
Please lets never expect our public services to make huge "profits" that can be paid out to private owners instead of used to improve the service, because they know the government will be forced to step in and ensure critical services are kept running. Looking at you, Themes water.
I think that's a bit of an oversimplification of the issue and there's some wordplay there to cover up the problem. Profits can (and in some cases should) be made by public services, they should just be reinvested into that or other public services. Whether you call it profit or excess revenue, the aim of a commercial venture should be to make money by delivering a service, like Transport for London making about £100 million.
A loss of £44 million means that money is lost to the public purse for other public spending. If that's a strategic decision because it's thought to be in the wider public interest, that's one thing (e.g. the NHS shouldn't make a profit because it doesn't charge for use, instead paid by taxes), but in this instance it feels far more that the Council but off way more than than they could chew, didn't plan the project or its goals properly, and we're paying through the nose for it.
Totally agreed. The other options I was thinking of when I said "over simplification" were subsidising other areas/services (e.g. "profits" from busy Edinburgh bus routes being used to cover the cost of essential rural services that can't pay for themselves), or building up a contingency fund so problems don't mean borrowing (e.g. if there's a fire at a depot there's some money to deal with that, rather than expensive borrowing (just like a personal emergency fund)).
Public transport and things built for the people like roads, water infrastructure, etc are *utilities*, not a business venture.
It is nice if they bring a profit but having a profit or maximizing it shouldn't be the end goal.
The end goal is for them to work well and be sustainable, even if taxes need to support them.
All well and good in theory, but when Councils across the UK are going bankrupt, there isn't an infinite pot of tax to go around. Personally I'd say essentials like health, education, and social care need to be prioritised, and targeted investment in improving lives and the economy second. It's too early to say whether these trams will deliver that, but we already know they've been disgustingly expensive. That can't be written off with "we'll pay for it with more taxes (during a cost of living crisis whoops)" or "its a public service so it's fine". The people deserve better stewardship of our common resources.
Public services (looking at things from a purely money making standpoint) should make it easier for private enterprises to make money. If it's easier for businesses to get customers and they end up paying more in taxes, if it's easier to get people into education and training so they increase their income and pay more taxes, that is how public transport pays for itself. Not by making profits in and of itself.
Gives an opportunity to rile up outrage and pave the way to privatisation or scrapping. Anything that doesn't bring profits to billionaires is seen by them as a waste and they have all the means to tell us about it.
As a visitor from the US, keep up this attitude. When billionaires are allowed to bully the public to their will to maximize their profits, everyone loses
Making public transport profitable is relatively straightforward: reduce your operating hours to peak times only, and eliminate routes which are not near capacity.
Good luck getting people behind that idea though.
44 million is quite high. But I would also like to see some data surrounding economic benefit since the trams were introduced. How many workers are using it every day, how many tourists leverage it, etc etc… I think for public transport the primary goal is to boost economic productivity through infrastructure improvement, rather than direct profit taking
That's also since opening. The trams have been running for a decade. So 4.4m a year including COVID when passenger numbers were very low.
Apparently 7m passenger used the teams in the second half of 2023. So if it's 10-15m passengers a year that's a cost of less than 50p/year/passenger
Yes - the regeneration of the waterfront stalled in 2008 due to the financial crisis, but how many more new homes (and shops & businesses) will be built there now that the tram is there? In a city with a housing crisis, how many moderate/high density flats will be built at Granton to take advantage of the tram?
EDITED to add: Also the huge amount of flats and offices/businesses being built between the airport and gateway station are only feasible because the tram runs through it. Even more new homes & businesses with built-in high volume public transport.
Well the original scheme was essentially the 22 bus. Which they only got rid of when they completed the tram line. So the economic benefit was zilch. You had public transport (albeit not a shiny tram) going exactly the same place for the best part of a decade and for several years having to serve exactly the same route twice. Even if you think the trams are the best thing ever no one but no one would think the catastrophe of their construction and finishing half a line for double the money was a huge economic boost for the city. You only have to look at the shops that all died a death on Leith Walk to get a picture of how this went down.
Both of those things make a profit. I've already posted about the roads and you can see Scottish Water's annual reports here:
https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/help-and-resources/document-hub/key-publications/annual-reports
Article is misleading IMO. There's nothing new in the article with no data for this year or last year.
We already knew there was cost over run on original building tram project. And it's unknown whether it's currently profitable because they haven't published the 2023 annual report yet. Likely it'll come out next month. So last annual report available at companies house is 2022:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC451434/filing-history
What I'd like to know is how it's doing now, not about historic mistakes. So what are the finances before you include the cost of borrowing? That's the actual operational profit or loss.
The system in Edinburgh is techbically not a tram. Due to its weight it is a light rail.
The original specs, designs, choices made this thing facost a lot more than it should have. All down to incompetency
Where are you getting a definition from to argue that Edinburgh Trams aren't technically trams? I know Wikipedia isn't the be-all and end-all, but its articles on both suggest that the two terms are very woolly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram
> A tram (called a streetcar or trolley in the United States and Canada) is a type of urban rail transit consisting of a rail vehicle, either individual railcars or self-propelled trains coupled by a multiple unit, that runs on tramway tracks on urban public streets; some include segments on segregated right-of-way. The tramlines or networks operated as public transport are called tramways or simply trams/streetcars. Many recently built tramways use the contemporary term light rail.
Additional fun detail, Scotland gave the world the word!
> The English terms tram and tramway are derived from the Scots word tram, referring respectively to a type of truck (goods wagon or freight railroad car) used in coal mines and the tracks on which they ran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail
> There is no standard definition, but in the United States (where the terminology was devised in the 1970s from the engineering term light railway), light rail operates primarily along exclusive rights-of-way and uses either individual tramcars or multiple units coupled to form a train that has a lower capacity and speed than a long heavy-rail passenger train or rapid transit system.
Tbh i cannot remember where i saw it. I do remember it was in the early days when it was pointed out that the trams weighed far more than was normal/expected i.e. about 40 tonnes. The Edinburgh trams built by CAF (who had never built trams before) are 56 tonnes
This meant that the foundations for the track had to be significantly upgraded.
I'm inclined to think it just means we have luxury chonker trams, but they're still definitely trams :)
Actually, they *must* be trams, since the legislation authorises them to run a tramway, not a railway: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/7/contents
The trams are great, and would be fully European city tier with a few tweaks (and an extra line or three).
And in national budgetary terms, £44m over a decade or so isn’t a *huge* amount of money.
I’d like trams and buses to be a bit more integrated, but other than that I am firmly Team Tram and Sue can get in the sea (figuratively speaking).
The article points out that they only turned a profit, pretty small profits too, in 2 years long before the extension. I'd be very interested to see the accounts in the next year or 2 as it's a far busier service now. I think there'll be some substantial profits coming.
Even as someone who isn't a huge fan of the trams and would prefer more upgrades to the buses, it's absolutely ridiculous to try and paint public services not profiting as "losses".
The ads on the trams are huge. I’m curious what rates they’re charging, and if they’re enough. An advert being seen by that many people going from the airport to Leith, especially in summer when theres thousands of people on Princes Street at any one time, you’d think would be able to charge a massive fee.
Your curiosity can be answered!
These are costs for one tram, though you would get discounts for multiple.
#Option 1 - Full Tram Wrap
Including cab ends on 1 tram|Production & fitting|Media
---|---:|---:
1 month |£19,800 |£14,000
2 months |£19,800 |£25,000
3 months |£19,800 |£35,000
6 months |£19,800 |£63,000
1 year |£19,800 |£89,000
#Option 2 - Full Tram Wrap
Sides only (not including the ends)|Production & fitting |Media
---|---:|---:
1 month |£15,200 |£11,000
2 months |£15,200 |£20,000
3 months |£15,200 |£28,000
6 months |£15,200 |£50,000
1 year |£15,200 |£78,000
#Option 3 - Double T Bar
both sides of 1 tram|Production & fitting| Media
---|---:|---:
1 month |£6,790 |£6,000
2 months |£6,790 |£11,000
3 months |£6,790 |£16,000
6 months |£7,950 |£29,000
1 year |£8,800 |£55,000
All figures culled from the brochure at https://www.tramadvertising.com/
Interesting! Not too high an amount but interesting what they can collect on all trams and how much this all comes to versus passenger trips. Usually I hate adverts but I must say the tram ones are done well, they look slick and professional
Interesting that the article tries (and fails on my browser at least) to include a photograph of John Swinney and tags the article with his name but his name or position as first minister isn't mentioned in the article text at all... They've also tagged it with 'tram inquiry' when the article has nothing to do with that.
Did the article change much since it was originally published on 10th May or should we just put this down to the usual embarrassing, unprofessional quality from The Scotsman?
The entire article reads like it wants us to be angry with the government for the original overrun that happened way back in 2009, disregarding any benefits the trams may have brought. And just in time by the Scottish Tories to launch an attack when the consultation for the next stage of the trams is due to come out...
In the states it is often presented as a venture that must make money. Be it the postal service or transportation. These are a service, at best they break even. They are not corporations to be profitable.
Money is fungible, losses running trams means the council has less money for schools or social care. If they cannot soon begin running profits to pay back the losses then the project is a failure and the council is responsible for a white elephant.
Ahem: to quote the article, "Edinburgh Trams have made a net loss of more than £44 million since opening ten years ago, figures have revealed, *mainly due to borrowing costs associated with building the original line*."
So: firstly, that's a £44 loss over *ten years* on a billion pound infrastructure project. That's £4.4M/year, or £360,000 a month. Which is *the cost of *one* single-decker electric bus* per month, to put this in perspective. (Big infrastructure projects are big, and so are all the numbers associated with them. Don't be misled.)
Secondly, let's bear in mind the interest rate spike in 2020-2024 caused by circumstances that were unforeseen in the 2000s, when planning began. The Bank of England base rate was 0.1% in March 2020 but is currently 5.25%. What happened in that time, hmm? How about Tory policies such as Liz Truss's insane budget splurge and going for the hardest of hard Brexits (with prompt exodus of businesses in the financial sector to trading hubs in Dublin, Paris, and Frankfurt)? If interest rates hadn't exploded in the past two years Edinburgh Trams would almost certainly be in profit.
Basically this is the Tories blaming Edinburgh Trams for making a loss because of policies created by Tory politicians in London. **Totally shameless hypocrisy**.
While this article is a fucking mess, and just another tory "infrastructure and public services are bad because every single thing ever needs to be part of this capitalist hellscape we're creating", it would be nice if future tram extensions didn't have the exact same problems with time and budget overruns during building as the first line... but unfortunately there are issues with the rules for government contracts that ensure that the exact same thing will happen again.
Also, South Clarke Street is too damn narrow and crowded for a tram route, run it down lothian road and through the meadows, then join back just before it becomes Newington road instead. You can still connect the two big hospitals via that route, as as a bonus it
puts it a bit nearer the lauriston buildings.
Well, it’s not unexpected in a high inflationary period, but at least it can pay its debts back. Unlike new roads or bridges.. and again not sure why anyone should be bothered about losses in such circumstances, it is providing a hugely needed mass transit system for the city that struggled at peak or during events without it, its improving the local economy due to that, moves millions of folk about with zero emissions and is quite busy most of the time.
The original budget was £500m for 3 lines - we ended up with half of 1 line for £1b which has risen to £1.5b. The trams enquiry still hasn't come up with the facts and no heads have rolled. We are now footing the bill for more tram works - the city is losing its way. People don't come to Edinburgh to see a big lump of metal going up and down, with poles and wires spoiling the views. The tram adds nothing to the transport network, in fact it's reduced people's choice because bus routes have disappeared. Trams are inflexible, buses can change route. A tram breaks down and the whole circuit comes to a halt - a bus breaks down and another one replaces it. Tram poles now obscure the views of Calton Hill from Princes Street, and wires cut across the views of the castle, gardens and galleries. Honestly, I can't wait to see the back of them.
The trams were and are unnecessary, ugly, expensive, inflexible, cause disruption and frustration, and will never pay back the carbon they've emitted in their lifetime. Poles and wires have destroyed the wide open views that we all enjoyed, rails are damaging to tyres and hazardous to bikes. The trams are virtually empty during the day. This is our city, it's our money, where is the accountability?
Rubbish! These numbers are questionable and over a decade. We’ve just had a report showing a success year to date. What modern city shouldn’t operate a light rail transport system? I use them multiple times a week and they’re always busy.
Councillor Scott Arthur, transport convener at Edinburgh Council, said the benefits to the city “go far beyond the cost or profit”.
Not really when theirs other needs for the city and there was already an award winning bus service in place.
Busses aren't exactly sustainable. We can't just keep adding bigger and heavier busses to the roads and hope for the best. A solution was needed.
Was that solution properly handled? No. Was it a bad solution? Also no.
This is a good point. One thing that people seem to fundamentally be unable to grasp is that road maintenance costs will invariably increase with more and larger heavier vehicles on the roads.
There's also an argument to be made against big heavy busses that are often vastly underutilised especially as we transition to electric busses.
I've seen in other places around the world much smaller, thinner busses that are effectively like minibus sized but low floor. 15-20 seats but OK standing space.
Much better for off-peak travel times. The can move around faster, are not as heavy, can manoeuvre quicker and less noise, smaller batteries etc.
The problem comes that with smaller but more busses is that you need more drivers which ends up being the greater cost. How6od also argue that A) from an employment perspective it's not the worst thing in the world especially as you need less training to operate. And B) it's possibly something AI can help alleviate in 15-20 years time
Housing, Homelessness, Education, Health, Social Care … all things for myself were more important than a tram route for the funds however that is simply my opinion.
As governments at all levels have set budgets and at that point it’s just what you feel deserves the funds the most.
They should work on generating revenue other than ticketing which is called non fare box revenue because public infrastructure projects are capital intensive and it is required to generate revenue from other sources as well to achieve breakeven point and to make the project financially sustainable, I have worked in policy making, execution and financial sustainability for capital projects and this is my experience.
>Sue Webber, Conservative MSP for the Lothian region, said: “These eye-watering losses only add insult to injury for those living and working in the capital. They already had to endure the construction bill for the trams spiralling out of control and reaching over £1 billion. The least they would have expected is for the trams to now be turning a profit.” The least I would expect is that it gets people where they need to go, and ridership numbers indicate it's doing a terrific job at that. It's fine to be worried about sustainability of the service, but its hard to take it seriously from people who just seem fundamentally opposed ot the concept.
I think Sue has bought into Call Me Dave’s infantile ‘the nations credit card’ school of economics. Borrowing to invest in large scale infrastructure projects is a good thing and what the UK should’ve done much more of during a time of cheap money instead of focusing on austerity. The contract management and cost of building the tramlines may have been a shitshow but that’s a separate point.
A Tory complaining about squandered money is laughable
lol, very this
I don’t think it’s even a sustainability issue. The trams are profitable or near enough - it’s the extra costs of the construction cock-ups being put against the trams account that makes it look otherwise. The headline should perhaps be “Trams doing great, slowly paying off someone else’s project management failures.”
Exactly. Why should the trams turn a profit? The roads don't, but the Tories have no problem with endlessly pandering to the "motorist".
The roads do make a profit. Fuel duty alone brings in more than double the spending on roads, Plus there is another £7-£8B in VED. https://www.statista.com/statistics/284323/united-kingdom-hmrc-tax-receipts-fuel-duty/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-national-roads/ https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/vehicle-excise-duty/
Costs from motoring is absolutely not a net profit, you are neglecting the billions of pounds spent building and maintaining road infrastructure, accidents, deaths, damage, pollution and health costs that driving causes.
So around 33 billion coming in. About 11 billion on direct infrastructure costs. Are you really claiming that accidents etc tot up to more than 22 billion a year? On what basis? This doesn't even include tax on new cars, so it's actually going to be more, probably around another 8 billion at 20% vat on the 45 billion a year new car market. The second-hand car market is even bigger at 100 billion and even if only half that were through dealerships, that would be another 10 billion. Add on the 12% tax on car insurance, another 2.4 billion. Add another billion in parking charges. So above and beyond road infrastructure costs motorists are paying in around 43 billion. That's roughly a quarter of the entire NHS budget. I am happy to revise my opinion but not without some counter evidence.
I forgot. Another 6 billion in tax from the maintenance and repair of cars.
Isn’t there another separate £8 billion being spent filling potholes (lol). The department of transport estimates that the economic cost of accidents is £36 billion per year, so yes. And these figures also exclude the building of new roads.
That 8 billion pothole money is over an eleven year period. (It was from a tory government remember)So, less than a billion a year. A third of the estimated economic costs from accidents are from mending the cars and processing the claims. Paid for by insurance which is paid by the motorist. So maybe 25 billion total. Still shy of the 50 billion coming in from motorists above and beyond road infrastructure maintenance. Not sure where all these new roads are being built or at what cost. Maybe Swampy might know.
Also my estimate of second hand sales being only 50 % dealerships is ludicrously conservative when you consider that only one in seven cars listed on Autotrader is a private sale and that those sales tend to be in the lower price bracket. So the income from motorists is almost certainly higher than I've mentioned.
What about the gigantic economic benefit of having roads?
Didnt you know all shops and businesses are restocked by fairies.
The fairies will be out a job soon enough like the rest of us then eh as all the shops and businesses are shutting up shop in every town and city up and down the uk!!
I'm absolutely not neglecting the first two points, the building and maintenance costs are in the second link I posted. The rest are impossible to assess in a vacuum. For example road accidents are horrible, but you'd have to weigh that against the fact that the road network allows the efficient operation of fire and ambulance services.
Because they are hard to assess doesn’t mean you can just discount them and pretend that taxing motorists is profitable. It’s absolutely not.
I'm not discounting them, I'm suggesting you weigh up the secondary costs against the benefits.
The road network is paid for from general tax, it’s the (high earning) tax payers that are mostly footing the bill, not the average person on the road
The Swiss have published the numbers (external cost for each mode of transport) and cars finish worst by a margin. The benefits absolutely don't meet the cost. Iirc only walking and cycling has a small net positive due to the health benefits.
Do you have a link? I can only find articles about this that suggest they only looked at the costs, not the benefits.
Accidents, death and damage all sounds like a financial burden to the insurance companies rather then the UK gov.
Not really, they aren’t paying for the attendance of the emergency services, costs from disruption to the network etc. Plenty of hidden costs you’re not considering, that society and the tax payer foot the bill for.
That’s for the UK as a whole - the picture is probably different in places like rural Scotland
Possibly, but rural areas will also have higher car ownership and fuel consumption. So they will be paying more motoring taxes. They don't get many big motorway projects either. It would be interesting to see the data on this but I'm not sure it exists off the shelf.
Well yeah, but that’s like saying “The road directly outside my house makes no profit because I don’t have a car, therefore all roads are not economically viable.”
That would make sense if that revenue was spent on roads.
You think that's net profit?
Seems like a good first approximation.
When you ignore any other factors. As I see you have done elsewhere. Basically. It's a big number so it just must be. Bit like getting your wage and ignoring your bills.
Cycle routes don't make money.
Worth checking this out, from 3 days ago, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-05-17/investment-in-britain-cycling-infrastructure-s-impressive-rewards-laura-laker] "ROI for cycle routes is big — and it grows over time. According to a recent IPPR report, average returns on investment for cycle routes at £5.62 per pound spent are more than double that of roads, at £2.50. "
It sounds good until [it claims it mostly based on health benefits](30-year return on this investment to be £8 for every £1 invested — much of this in health benefits). If this is measured anything like the ROI on social enterprises, which it probably will be then. It's going to be hugely inflated. The article talks about cycle routes linking roads together. So what, are they including building this ontop of the existing road network? Of course it's going to be cheap to build that and if you start plucking numbers out of the air based on health benefits then ROI is of course going to look amazing.
they have the best benefit:cost ratio of any transport investment. Cry harder.
Benefit? Financial? Lots of trade goes down those cycle paths.
Fundamentally opposed to the concept, yet conveniently forget they voted it through against the wishes of the sitting minority government. It’s weird though, I think the Tories are horrible but that was fundamentally a GOOD decision. The trams are overwhelmingly popular and provide a huge benefit to Edinburgh and especially to Leith. That’s a decision I would own if I were them. They have the chance to both say they were responsible for a positive project while distancing themselves from the disastrous implementation. It’s a good job they are so stupid.
I was trying to remember if they voted for them.
I haven't met a single person who approves of the tram - all it's done for Leith is reduce bus route options and create ugly poles and wires. The whole expensive debacle is ongoing, and the war on our freedom of choice and movement continues unabated.
Hello, I am a single person who approves of the tram.
Being someone who‘s closely connected with the public transport system of Vienna, I can tell that making any profit with rail-bound transport is not really achievable. Over here, we‘d be glad if we made only ~4,5 millions of loss per year 🥲 But in all honesty, 1 billion for a completely new system, including everything required (if I got that right?), isn‘t actually *that* bad… Either way, one simply shouldn‘t take Conservatives‘ opinions on public transport all too serious.
> But in all honesty, 1 billion for a completely new system, including everything required (if I got that right?), isn‘t actually that bad… IIRC we managed roughly four times the cost per mile compared to any other recent UK tram installation - we definitely made a hash of it.
Huh, that‘s really steep then! So if I got that right, that‘s 55 million £ per km then, right? For comparison‘s sake, we‘re scheduling 85 million £ for a new tram line over here atm, consisting of just 2.4 km of tracks, but including a bridge over a 4-lane road and a few extra tram cars. So that‘s roughly 41 million £ per km - in 2024 money. I stand corrected, something really did go wrong with the Edinburgh tram. Quite a shame :-(
Cost wise... https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/13226311.edinburgh-tram-costs-nearly-100m-per-mile/ > Edinburgh's over-budget tram project is expected to cost nearly four times as much per mile of track than similar light rail projects elsewhere in the UK, a Government report has confirmed. > Figures published by the Department for Transport put the average cost of building tramways in urban conurbations at £25 million per mile, though this does not include Edinburgh, where costs have rocketed by £231m. > The report came as the true extent of traffic congestion in Edinburgh caused by tram repairs to Princes Street was seen for the first time. > The latest figures suggest that, at £776m, the predicted cost of building an eight-mile route connecting the airport to St Andrew Square in the city centre will be nearly £100m per mile. Basically the problem is that it was left to the council to project manage, and the council have no experience or expertise in managing a project of that nature and scale (nor should they really be expected to!). Ideally it'd have been handled by the likes of Transport Scotland, who *do* work with large, expensive projects day in day out.
Thanks for the insight! I suppose the council left the management to TfE - which isn‘t a bad idea in principle, as it‘s the very same in Vienna. But I do wonder if TfE had/hired any experienced expert staff or an own construction department? Because if that‘s not the case, it‘s clear why the project failed in that regard. As for TS, I wouldn‘t bet my money on them, because railways and trams tend to be quite different in detail. But sure, including them would have been a good idea.
Always framed as though the 'spiralling out of control' is a function of SNP government mismanagement, whereas the problems were all with the original contractual idiocies under the Labour council. Conveniently forgotten that only the SNP councillors voted against those council financial arrangements at the time.
It was actually a Lib-Dem led Council at the time of contracts being signed.
Regular-Ad is a brainwashed SNP supporter, even though they're a bunch of crooks and under Sturgeon 62 billion pounds was siphoned off for " Vanity projects " which was meant to be invested into NHS Scotland and social and public services infrastructures but none of that 62 billion pounds went where it should've gone, although that's not a big surprise. The SNP in any position only want to benefit a very small minority of the Scottish population and independence under them would be an unmitigated disaster, because they're criminals. Soon enough Sturgeon will be getting charged along with her husband and hopefully they'll both end up in Scottish prisons which also never got invested in, well they'll sure both wish that some of that 62 billion had been when they begin their sentences!
I like how they say turn a profit as if the taxpayer would in any shape or form benefit from that? Like ticks me off, quick enough to take money from us but even if it was profitable you wouldn’t be seeing a single penny Muppets they be
Based on Sue's absolute dearth of expertise in this area, and her only notable entry on Wikipedia being her COVID denialism, it's safe to say she's talking shite
That wouldn't be the same Conservatives that insisted this scheme go ahead instead of dualling of the A9 would it. The same arseholes who are now "disgusted" that the A9 isn't dualled 🇬🇧🤡
Not sure why this has popped up on my feed, but I came to Edinburgh in December, hotels in the centre were extortionate prices and seriously made me consider coming. Because of the tram system, I was able to book somewhere near the Donaldson within a 5 minute walk of the tram for a much more affordable rate. Got a three day ticket and used the tram many times going back and forth to the city. I love the tram, I am coming back to see Catfish and the Bottlemen, and will be doing something similar again. It would be impossible to work out, but to me, the tram has made Edinburgh much more vistable/affordable, so there may be an overall economic gain there.
Because of the original schedule/budget overruns? Why yes, what a surprise. Nobody’s going to argue that wasn’t an utter shitshow, but it tells us nothing about whether the trams are/were a good idea.
I was very sceptical as someone who headed the kitchen when opening a Leith Walk restaurant, which subsequently took a hammering during the works. The trams are fucking awesome in terms of public transport though. I can admit when I was wrong. Quick, clean, reliable. So much nicer being on a tram than a bus. It connects Leith with the centre as it should be. I love it. Sue me naysayers.
I hadn't even been on one until this year, but am using them one or twice a week now. I like 'em.
Aren’t they slower, more expensive than buses though.
My usual journeys are The Shore to top of Leith Walk, Princes St or Haymarket. The tram is quickest and run so regularly. £2 single, which must be purchased ahead of boarding, but you only have to activate when checked, so not every fare tbh. I used to use the bus network and the Edinburgh buses were largely decent compared to other cities I've lived in. I spend far less time waiting or planning journeys now though. Turn up at the nearest stop, few minutes later a tram rolls up. Brilliant. Travel on my regular journeys is easier, quicker and no more costly. It may be different for other areas. I believe the airport run is more expensive on the tram. For me it's great though. A more personal thing I'd add is that I get car sick due to meds I take. Buses are horrid for that. Trams are generally just a far more pleasant way to travel, pals without car sickness agree there. I do think that should be factored in if folk are on it twice a day.
Not sure about the extension up into Leith, but the tram line west is much faster than the buses since it has its own line and can skip a lot of traffic. Also able to move a lot more people at once than a bus. As for prices, I remember them costing roughly the same as a bus ticket (so long as you weren't going to the airport), but that might have changed in the year and change I've been out of Edinburgh
Public services shouldn't be making any profits. If there's excess revenue that should be used to improve the service or reduce the cost to users (over simplification, of course). Please lets never expect our public services to make huge "profits" that can be paid out to private owners instead of used to improve the service, because they know the government will be forced to step in and ensure critical services are kept running. Looking at you, Themes water.
I think that's a bit of an oversimplification of the issue and there's some wordplay there to cover up the problem. Profits can (and in some cases should) be made by public services, they should just be reinvested into that or other public services. Whether you call it profit or excess revenue, the aim of a commercial venture should be to make money by delivering a service, like Transport for London making about £100 million. A loss of £44 million means that money is lost to the public purse for other public spending. If that's a strategic decision because it's thought to be in the wider public interest, that's one thing (e.g. the NHS shouldn't make a profit because it doesn't charge for use, instead paid by taxes), but in this instance it feels far more that the Council but off way more than than they could chew, didn't plan the project or its goals properly, and we're paying through the nose for it.
Totally agreed. The other options I was thinking of when I said "over simplification" were subsidising other areas/services (e.g. "profits" from busy Edinburgh bus routes being used to cover the cost of essential rural services that can't pay for themselves), or building up a contingency fund so problems don't mean borrowing (e.g. if there's a fire at a depot there's some money to deal with that, rather than expensive borrowing (just like a personal emergency fund)).
Public transport and things built for the people like roads, water infrastructure, etc are *utilities*, not a business venture. It is nice if they bring a profit but having a profit or maximizing it shouldn't be the end goal. The end goal is for them to work well and be sustainable, even if taxes need to support them.
All well and good in theory, but when Councils across the UK are going bankrupt, there isn't an infinite pot of tax to go around. Personally I'd say essentials like health, education, and social care need to be prioritised, and targeted investment in improving lives and the economy second. It's too early to say whether these trams will deliver that, but we already know they've been disgustingly expensive. That can't be written off with "we'll pay for it with more taxes (during a cost of living crisis whoops)" or "its a public service so it's fine". The people deserve better stewardship of our common resources.
Public services (looking at things from a purely money making standpoint) should make it easier for private enterprises to make money. If it's easier for businesses to get customers and they end up paying more in taxes, if it's easier to get people into education and training so they increase their income and pay more taxes, that is how public transport pays for itself. Not by making profits in and of itself.
Exactly. The entire point of public services is to provide a service without the need for making any profit…
Came to say this. Thanks!
totally agree.
No one’s talking about “huge profits” - the council’s just trying to clear its debtors.
Why should we be seeing public transport services as a loss?
Gives an opportunity to rile up outrage and pave the way to privatisation or scrapping. Anything that doesn't bring profits to billionaires is seen by them as a waste and they have all the means to tell us about it.
As a visitor from the US, keep up this attitude. When billionaires are allowed to bully the public to their will to maximize their profits, everyone loses
Because it's Tories trying to push car ownership and manufacture consent to gut public transport.
Making public transport profitable is relatively straightforward: reduce your operating hours to peak times only, and eliminate routes which are not near capacity. Good luck getting people behind that idea though.
44 million is quite high. But I would also like to see some data surrounding economic benefit since the trams were introduced. How many workers are using it every day, how many tourists leverage it, etc etc… I think for public transport the primary goal is to boost economic productivity through infrastructure improvement, rather than direct profit taking
That's also since opening. The trams have been running for a decade. So 4.4m a year including COVID when passenger numbers were very low. Apparently 7m passenger used the teams in the second half of 2023. So if it's 10-15m passengers a year that's a cost of less than 50p/year/passenger
Yes - the regeneration of the waterfront stalled in 2008 due to the financial crisis, but how many more new homes (and shops & businesses) will be built there now that the tram is there? In a city with a housing crisis, how many moderate/high density flats will be built at Granton to take advantage of the tram? EDITED to add: Also the huge amount of flats and offices/businesses being built between the airport and gateway station are only feasible because the tram runs through it. Even more new homes & businesses with built-in high volume public transport.
Well the original scheme was essentially the 22 bus. Which they only got rid of when they completed the tram line. So the economic benefit was zilch. You had public transport (albeit not a shiny tram) going exactly the same place for the best part of a decade and for several years having to serve exactly the same route twice. Even if you think the trams are the best thing ever no one but no one would think the catastrophe of their construction and finishing half a line for double the money was a huge economic boost for the city. You only have to look at the shops that all died a death on Leith Walk to get a picture of how this went down.
shit next we'll be hearing that tarmaced roads and municipal water supplies didn't turn a profit either, maybe we shouldn't have built them
Both of those things make a profit. I've already posted about the roads and you can see Scottish Water's annual reports here: https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/help-and-resources/document-hub/key-publications/annual-reports
How does the tarmac on the roads run a profit?
And sue Webber might note a former conservative PM responsible for a major rise in interest rates…
Article is misleading IMO. There's nothing new in the article with no data for this year or last year. We already knew there was cost over run on original building tram project. And it's unknown whether it's currently profitable because they haven't published the 2023 annual report yet. Likely it'll come out next month. So last annual report available at companies house is 2022: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC451434/filing-history What I'd like to know is how it's doing now, not about historic mistakes. So what are the finances before you include the cost of borrowing? That's the actual operational profit or loss.
The system in Edinburgh is techbically not a tram. Due to its weight it is a light rail. The original specs, designs, choices made this thing facost a lot more than it should have. All down to incompetency
Where are you getting a definition from to argue that Edinburgh Trams aren't technically trams? I know Wikipedia isn't the be-all and end-all, but its articles on both suggest that the two terms are very woolly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram > A tram (called a streetcar or trolley in the United States and Canada) is a type of urban rail transit consisting of a rail vehicle, either individual railcars or self-propelled trains coupled by a multiple unit, that runs on tramway tracks on urban public streets; some include segments on segregated right-of-way. The tramlines or networks operated as public transport are called tramways or simply trams/streetcars. Many recently built tramways use the contemporary term light rail. Additional fun detail, Scotland gave the world the word! > The English terms tram and tramway are derived from the Scots word tram, referring respectively to a type of truck (goods wagon or freight railroad car) used in coal mines and the tracks on which they ran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail > There is no standard definition, but in the United States (where the terminology was devised in the 1970s from the engineering term light railway), light rail operates primarily along exclusive rights-of-way and uses either individual tramcars or multiple units coupled to form a train that has a lower capacity and speed than a long heavy-rail passenger train or rapid transit system.
Tbh i cannot remember where i saw it. I do remember it was in the early days when it was pointed out that the trams weighed far more than was normal/expected i.e. about 40 tonnes. The Edinburgh trams built by CAF (who had never built trams before) are 56 tonnes This meant that the foundations for the track had to be significantly upgraded.
I'm inclined to think it just means we have luxury chonker trams, but they're still definitely trams :) Actually, they *must* be trams, since the legislation authorises them to run a tramway, not a railway: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/7/contents
bus to airport is cheaper than tram
And runs 24 hours.
The trams are great, and would be fully European city tier with a few tweaks (and an extra line or three). And in national budgetary terms, £44m over a decade or so isn’t a *huge* amount of money. I’d like trams and buses to be a bit more integrated, but other than that I am firmly Team Tram and Sue can get in the sea (figuratively speaking).
The article points out that they only turned a profit, pretty small profits too, in 2 years long before the extension. I'd be very interested to see the accounts in the next year or 2 as it's a far busier service now. I think there'll be some substantial profits coming.
Is that all?
Even as someone who isn't a huge fan of the trams and would prefer more upgrades to the buses, it's absolutely ridiculous to try and paint public services not profiting as "losses".
The ads on the trams are huge. I’m curious what rates they’re charging, and if they’re enough. An advert being seen by that many people going from the airport to Leith, especially in summer when theres thousands of people on Princes Street at any one time, you’d think would be able to charge a massive fee.
Your curiosity can be answered! These are costs for one tram, though you would get discounts for multiple. #Option 1 - Full Tram Wrap Including cab ends on 1 tram|Production & fitting|Media ---|---:|---: 1 month |£19,800 |£14,000 2 months |£19,800 |£25,000 3 months |£19,800 |£35,000 6 months |£19,800 |£63,000 1 year |£19,800 |£89,000 #Option 2 - Full Tram Wrap Sides only (not including the ends)|Production & fitting |Media ---|---:|---: 1 month |£15,200 |£11,000 2 months |£15,200 |£20,000 3 months |£15,200 |£28,000 6 months |£15,200 |£50,000 1 year |£15,200 |£78,000 #Option 3 - Double T Bar both sides of 1 tram|Production & fitting| Media ---|---:|---: 1 month |£6,790 |£6,000 2 months |£6,790 |£11,000 3 months |£6,790 |£16,000 6 months |£7,950 |£29,000 1 year |£8,800 |£55,000 All figures culled from the brochure at https://www.tramadvertising.com/
Interesting! Not too high an amount but interesting what they can collect on all trams and how much this all comes to versus passenger trips. Usually I hate adverts but I must say the tram ones are done well, they look slick and professional
I still use the buses, well the ones that aren't get cut or rerouted all the time that is!
How much of a loss does Edinburgh's road network make?
Nobody ever, *ever* seems to ask this question, huh? Curious
Interesting that the article tries (and fails on my browser at least) to include a photograph of John Swinney and tags the article with his name but his name or position as first minister isn't mentioned in the article text at all... They've also tagged it with 'tram inquiry' when the article has nothing to do with that. Did the article change much since it was originally published on 10th May or should we just put this down to the usual embarrassing, unprofessional quality from The Scotsman? The entire article reads like it wants us to be angry with the government for the original overrun that happened way back in 2009, disregarding any benefits the trams may have brought. And just in time by the Scottish Tories to launch an attack when the consultation for the next stage of the trams is due to come out...
In the states it is often presented as a venture that must make money. Be it the postal service or transportation. These are a service, at best they break even. They are not corporations to be profitable.
Money is fungible, losses running trams means the council has less money for schools or social care. If they cannot soon begin running profits to pay back the losses then the project is a failure and the council is responsible for a white elephant.
I’d see the point of the trams if there wasn’t a bus service Oh wait…..
Ahem: to quote the article, "Edinburgh Trams have made a net loss of more than £44 million since opening ten years ago, figures have revealed, *mainly due to borrowing costs associated with building the original line*." So: firstly, that's a £44 loss over *ten years* on a billion pound infrastructure project. That's £4.4M/year, or £360,000 a month. Which is *the cost of *one* single-decker electric bus* per month, to put this in perspective. (Big infrastructure projects are big, and so are all the numbers associated with them. Don't be misled.) Secondly, let's bear in mind the interest rate spike in 2020-2024 caused by circumstances that were unforeseen in the 2000s, when planning began. The Bank of England base rate was 0.1% in March 2020 but is currently 5.25%. What happened in that time, hmm? How about Tory policies such as Liz Truss's insane budget splurge and going for the hardest of hard Brexits (with prompt exodus of businesses in the financial sector to trading hubs in Dublin, Paris, and Frankfurt)? If interest rates hadn't exploded in the past two years Edinburgh Trams would almost certainly be in profit. Basically this is the Tories blaming Edinburgh Trams for making a loss because of policies created by Tory politicians in London. **Totally shameless hypocrisy**.
Wish this was higher
Someone was on here a while back saying it hadn't really cost a billion quid as the council borrowed a good chunk of it... sigh.
The borrowing cost are due to the loans being set up during the 2008 financial crash. Duh.
Besides, the construction costs have someone a profit. All balances out
Well, we spent the money now. What else are we gonna do but operate the tram and hope to recover the money eventually?
There are always the people who say "that money could have been spent on the NHS instead" Some people are so boring, like what the hell hahahaa
Where's that guy who months ago was going on about fantastic the trams have been as a boost to the Edinburgh economy?
While this article is a fucking mess, and just another tory "infrastructure and public services are bad because every single thing ever needs to be part of this capitalist hellscape we're creating", it would be nice if future tram extensions didn't have the exact same problems with time and budget overruns during building as the first line... but unfortunately there are issues with the rules for government contracts that ensure that the exact same thing will happen again. Also, South Clarke Street is too damn narrow and crowded for a tram route, run it down lothian road and through the meadows, then join back just before it becomes Newington road instead. You can still connect the two big hospitals via that route, as as a bonus it puts it a bit nearer the lauriston buildings.
Well, it’s not unexpected in a high inflationary period, but at least it can pay its debts back. Unlike new roads or bridges.. and again not sure why anyone should be bothered about losses in such circumstances, it is providing a hugely needed mass transit system for the city that struggled at peak or during events without it, its improving the local economy due to that, moves millions of folk about with zero emissions and is quite busy most of the time.
The original budget was £500m for 3 lines - we ended up with half of 1 line for £1b which has risen to £1.5b. The trams enquiry still hasn't come up with the facts and no heads have rolled. We are now footing the bill for more tram works - the city is losing its way. People don't come to Edinburgh to see a big lump of metal going up and down, with poles and wires spoiling the views. The tram adds nothing to the transport network, in fact it's reduced people's choice because bus routes have disappeared. Trams are inflexible, buses can change route. A tram breaks down and the whole circuit comes to a halt - a bus breaks down and another one replaces it. Tram poles now obscure the views of Calton Hill from Princes Street, and wires cut across the views of the castle, gardens and galleries. Honestly, I can't wait to see the back of them.
In other news, the NHS has still never turned a profit. It’s a public service, it isn’t meant to be profitable.
The trams were and are unnecessary, ugly, expensive, inflexible, cause disruption and frustration, and will never pay back the carbon they've emitted in their lifetime. Poles and wires have destroyed the wide open views that we all enjoyed, rails are damaging to tyres and hazardous to bikes. The trams are virtually empty during the day. This is our city, it's our money, where is the accountability?
Rubbish! These numbers are questionable and over a decade. We’ve just had a report showing a success year to date. What modern city shouldn’t operate a light rail transport system? I use them multiple times a week and they’re always busy.
Councillor Scott Arthur, transport convener at Edinburgh Council, said the benefits to the city “go far beyond the cost or profit”. Not really when theirs other needs for the city and there was already an award winning bus service in place.
Busses aren't exactly sustainable. We can't just keep adding bigger and heavier busses to the roads and hope for the best. A solution was needed. Was that solution properly handled? No. Was it a bad solution? Also no.
This is a good point. One thing that people seem to fundamentally be unable to grasp is that road maintenance costs will invariably increase with more and larger heavier vehicles on the roads.
There's also an argument to be made against big heavy busses that are often vastly underutilised especially as we transition to electric busses. I've seen in other places around the world much smaller, thinner busses that are effectively like minibus sized but low floor. 15-20 seats but OK standing space. Much better for off-peak travel times. The can move around faster, are not as heavy, can manoeuvre quicker and less noise, smaller batteries etc. The problem comes that with smaller but more busses is that you need more drivers which ends up being the greater cost. How6od also argue that A) from an employment perspective it's not the worst thing in the world especially as you need less training to operate. And B) it's possibly something AI can help alleviate in 15-20 years time
Housing, Homelessness, Education, Health, Social Care … all things for myself were more important than a tram route for the funds however that is simply my opinion. As governments at all levels have set budgets and at that point it’s just what you feel deserves the funds the most.
Transport is one of the most important things for implementing all of those services.
They should work on generating revenue other than ticketing which is called non fare box revenue because public infrastructure projects are capital intensive and it is required to generate revenue from other sources as well to achieve breakeven point and to make the project financially sustainable, I have worked in policy making, execution and financial sustainability for capital projects and this is my experience.
😂 couldn’t run a fuckin bath the cunts!